[NoBullZone]

I’m not aware of anything Duke did that would result in a sucessful suit. Cancelling the soceer season because of a party where there was underage drinking is a little drastic, but could be defended. Don’t get me wrong, I think Duke treated these young men horribly, but I don’t think the legal case would have been that strong.

As for the 88 however: libel, defamation, inflicting emotional distress ... lots of goodies to go after there.

[Jack Black]

They were suspended, weren’t they?

[SampleMan]

Cancelling the soceer season because of a party where there was underage drinking is a little drastic, but could be defended.

Easier to defend if it wasn't the lacrosse team that was at issue ;-)

[AlphaOneAlpha]

“As for the 88 however: libel, defamation, inflicting emotional distress ... lots of goodies to go after there.”

Yep, that’s what happens when a group of self-absorbed “elite” jackasses step out of the lecture hall, thinking they can do & say in the real world the bizarre things they do in their cocooned academic world.
Burn the SOB’s.

[bvw]

I don't think that the old law of "in loco parentis" is dead. The fact that many have declared it dead, over and over is, to me, a sign of life.

It is no more dead than any fundament of reality can be. The tides of human fashion wave in and out, the march of folly never exhausts.

"In Loco Parentis" could be worked in many ways in this case. The absence of attention by the faculty and the administration to it are, I think, full of torts both before and after the Bad Night of the Strippers.